Brother/Sister Incest. What's Wrong With It? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T17:55:25Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/brother-sister-incest-what-s-wrong-with-it?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1261638&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe chance of something bad h…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-30:1982180:Comment:13017512013-04-30T01:04:59.937ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>The chance of something bad happening for genetic reasons is actually not huge even in cases of incest, and yet we let people pair up with each other without barging in to see if there might be some unfortunate pairing of genes. I don't get the hysteria over sibling incest when they are being responsible about pregnancy. If they're either sterile to start with or are serious about not getting pregnant then I'm not worried about it. In the vague chance that a pregnancy might occur anyway,…</p>
<p>The chance of something bad happening for genetic reasons is actually not huge even in cases of incest, and yet we let people pair up with each other without barging in to see if there might be some unfortunate pairing of genes. I don't get the hysteria over sibling incest when they are being responsible about pregnancy. If they're either sterile to start with or are serious about not getting pregnant then I'm not worried about it. In the vague chance that a pregnancy might occur anyway, they are likely to believe in abortion (I doubt if they'll be hyper-religious). Anyway, if we are so hot to prevent genetic anomalies, then we should be looking at every single coupling, not just marital partners but all boy/girl sexual relationships.</p> Because a third human being i…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-29:1982180:Comment:13015382013-04-29T17:03:20.107Zluvtheheavenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/luvtheheaven
<p>Because a third human being is thrown into the mix. It's not really morally acceptable to "force suffering" of some kind on a new "genetically messed up" child. That's why it's different. That's the whole point. It's not about the couple getting pregnant. It's about the pregnancy potentially not being aborted and the child who is produced. It's about if it should be legally okay to force the abortion on the woman or the couple, or if it's not that big a deal for that child to exist when…</p>
<p>Because a third human being is thrown into the mix. It's not really morally acceptable to "force suffering" of some kind on a new "genetically messed up" child. That's why it's different. That's the whole point. It's not about the couple getting pregnant. It's about the pregnancy potentially not being aborted and the child who is produced. It's about if it should be legally okay to force the abortion on the woman or the couple, or if it's not that big a deal for that child to exist when compared to all of the other types of children allowed to be brought into existence, or... etc. That was my only point.</p> I like this rational, non-spi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-27:1982180:Comment:13005442013-04-27T19:19:43.528ZPope Beaniehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/PaulRyan
<p>I like this rational, non-spinned statement.</p>
<p>I like this rational, non-spinned statement.</p> As an ingrained (and thus non…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-27:1982180:Comment:13000772013-04-27T14:15:22.572ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>As an ingrained (and thus nonrational) taboo, there's little risk of it becoming commonplace or "normal."</p>
<p>As an ingrained (and thus nonrational) taboo, there's little risk of it becoming commonplace or "normal."</p> My argument is, as per a prev…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-27:1982180:Comment:13003362013-04-27T13:51:49.953ZAlan Chttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlanCragg
<p>My argument is, as per a previous post, that if one pair of siblings form a relationship and it becomes seen as normal by their peers, then it is natural that others will will copy them and eventually, somewhere down the line, offspring will be produced, by accident or design, then that will be seen as normal, etc.</p>
<p>It is human nature and therefore, I think, should be discouraged, as it is now. As per the two articles, it is probably genetically inbuilt into most of us to not…</p>
<p>My argument is, as per a previous post, that if one pair of siblings form a relationship and it becomes seen as normal by their peers, then it is natural that others will will copy them and eventually, somewhere down the line, offspring will be produced, by accident or design, then that will be seen as normal, etc.</p>
<p>It is human nature and therefore, I think, should be discouraged, as it is now. As per the two articles, it is probably genetically inbuilt into most of us to not procreate with our siblings.</p> Those studies divide into two…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-25:1982180:Comment:12992622013-04-25T23:11:44.163ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Those studies divide into two aspects. </p>
<p>1) the genetic part</p>
<p>2) the psychosocial (taboo) part</p>
<p>We know that it's a taboo. No news there. And while the genetic aspect is well-known and accepted, it's still a fact that the original post was based on "suppose the couple didn't produce offspring," this eliminating the genetic factor as a consideration.</p>
<p>Those studies divide into two aspects. </p>
<p>1) the genetic part</p>
<p>2) the psychosocial (taboo) part</p>
<p>We know that it's a taboo. No news there. And while the genetic aspect is well-known and accepted, it's still a fact that the original post was based on "suppose the couple didn't produce offspring," this eliminating the genetic factor as a consideration.</p> At risk of having your ire di…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-25:1982180:Comment:12993722013-04-25T23:01:03.407ZAlan Chttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlanCragg
<p>At risk of having your ire directed at me, you might want to read these two articles (They are not long and they present the research so much more eloquently than I could):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.livescience.com/4363-kinship-detectors-prevent-incest-cases.html">http://www.livescience.com/4363-kinship-detectors-prevent-incest-cases.html…</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>At risk of having your ire directed at me, you might want to read these two articles (They are not long and they present the research so much more eloquently than I could):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.livescience.com/4363-kinship-detectors-prevent-incest-cases.html">http://www.livescience.com/4363-kinship-detectors-prevent-incest-cases.html</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html">http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting discussion by the way, you definitely poked the nest with a stick on that one.</p> But we want to preserve reces…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-25:1982180:Comment:12993242013-04-25T13:06:00.236ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>But we want to preserve recessive genes. A world without blondes or redheads? No more cute freckled girls? We'd also lose blue, gray, and green eyes. Straight hair is the recessive gene. </p>
<p>Strangely, <em>(t)here are some dominant genes that do not often express themselves. Extra toes are dominant but are not common. Fingers that lack a joint, extra fingers, fused fingers and short fingers are also dominant. A straight thumb is dominant while a "hitchhiker's" thumb is recessive. A bent…</em></p>
<p>But we want to preserve recessive genes. A world without blondes or redheads? No more cute freckled girls? We'd also lose blue, gray, and green eyes. Straight hair is the recessive gene. </p>
<p>Strangely, <em>(t)here are some dominant genes that do not often express themselves. Extra toes are dominant but are not common. Fingers that lack a joint, extra fingers, fused fingers and short fingers are also dominant. A straight thumb is dominant while a "hitchhiker's" thumb is recessive. A bent little finger illustrates a dominant gene, while a straight little finger characterizes a recessive one.</em> (<a href="http://www.ehow.com/info_8373627_list-dominant-vs-recessive-genes.html" target="_blank">source</a>)</p> What part of 'normal' implies…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-25:1982180:Comment:12991192013-04-25T09:09:21.576ZAlan Chttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AlanCragg
<p>What part of 'normal' implies that everyone does it? Homosexuality is 'normal', not everyone is homosexual. Driving a car is 'normal' and not everyone drives a car. What an odd thought process you have.</p>
<p>What I was alluding to was that if it is acceptable for siblings who cannot have offspring or who decide never to have offspring to enter into a relationship, that would 'normalise' that type of relationship and others would see that it was acceptable.</p>
<p>Eventually there would…</p>
<p>What part of 'normal' implies that everyone does it? Homosexuality is 'normal', not everyone is homosexual. Driving a car is 'normal' and not everyone drives a car. What an odd thought process you have.</p>
<p>What I was alluding to was that if it is acceptable for siblings who cannot have offspring or who decide never to have offspring to enter into a relationship, that would 'normalise' that type of relationship and others would see that it was acceptable.</p>
<p>Eventually there would be siblings in relationships who did produce offspring, by accident or design, and that could then become 'normal'.</p>
<p>I know there are a lot of 'what ifs' in there but this discussion was started by someone playing devil's advocate and I am adding to it in the same vein. I am not a biologist and do not purport to know what the full effect, if any, would be on the gene pool.</p>
<p>From what I have seen and read with regard to reproduction in the animal kingdom, incest does not seem that common, but I might be totally wrong there too (prepares to be flamed.) This article is not definitive but is interesting reading non the less <a href="http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html">http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html</a></p> At least your topic kept the…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-04-25:1982180:Comment:12990702013-04-25T01:18:53.117ZBarry Adamsonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/BarryAdamson
<p>At least your topic kept the "love" within the same species!</p>
<p>At least your topic kept the "love" within the same species!</p>